Fox News Host- "You can't trust Chinamen"

[Unkotare]

That it's been out of common parlance for several generations, however, is.

The frequency with which the term is used by racists like Bobby is assumption on your part, champ. Or are you claiming some strong familiarity with the racist crowd? In any case, the intent and result of offense does not rely on your assumption regarding the aforementioned, idiot.

I do not purport to have any knowledge of how often the term is used by "Bobby", "Davy", "Mickey", "Peter", "Paul" or "Ringo", K? I'm going by the one video we're supplied with. Again, learn the **** what a speculation fallacy is. Dumbass [sic].

It's fun watching you try to prance around using terms you clearly do not understand. You seem to think it's aggrandizing, but you just make yourself look ever more the buffoon.

You claim to be "going by" the video in the OP, but you don't seem to be able to understand it. Bobby sure as hell knew right away what he had done and why it was inappropriate, even for him.

 

[Unkotare]

Are you trying to say demur?

That is what I meant to write. Thank you.

 

[Dot Com]

ALL of us know that ULTIMATELY Fox is responsible for their employees.

 

[kaz]

ALL of us know that ULTIMATELY Fox is responsible for their employees.

When Fox puts Walter Mondale's campaign manager on the air to give the Democrat viewpoint, what the liberal says is on them.

So that's the standard you hold the liberal media to, right? If they have a Republican on, and the Republican says something you don't like, you blame the liberal media who put them on?

LOL, maybe you do, maybe that's why you don't see anyone but liberals in the liberal media.

 

[Pogo]

ALL of us know that ULTIMATELY Fox is responsible for their employees.

When Fox puts Walter Mondale's campaign manager on the air to give the Democrat viewpoint, what the liberal says is on them.

So that's the standard you hold the liberal media to, right? If they have a Republican on, and the Republican says something you don't like, you blame the liberal media who put them on?

LOL, maybe you do, maybe that's why you don't see anyone but liberals in the liberal media.

There is no "liberal media". Except to the redundancy extent that having a media (open discourse) is a Liberal idea. But as far as BM (Big Media) there is no ideology. BM isn't about ideology any more than Big Oil is about fuel efficiency. It's about making money. For itself. And ideology don't pay no bills. Profit does that.

We just did this a few minutes ago. Somebody must have thrown the switch on the Parallel Universe.

 

[Dot Com]

ALL of us know that ULTIMATELY Fox is responsible for their employees.

When Fox puts Walter Mondale's campaign manager on the air to give the Democrat viewpoint, what the liberal says is on them.

So that's the standard you hold the liberal media to, right? If they have a Republican on, and the Republican says something you don't like, you blame the liberal media who put them on?

LOL, maybe you do, maybe that's why you don't see anyone but liberals in the liberal media.

There is no "liberal media". Except to the redundancy extent that having a media (open discourse) is a Liberal idea. But as far as BM (Big Media) there is no ideology. BM isn't about ideology any more than Big Oil is about fuel efficiency. It's about making money. For itself. And ideology don't pay no bills. Profit does that.

We just did this a few minutes ago. Somebody must have thrown the switch on the Parallel Universe.

Do try to keep up kaz lol

As to the OP, Fox NEEDS to issue an apology!!!

 

[kaz]

See? You are incapable of honest discussion.

You start out calling him a Liberal, then when called on it, you call him a Democrat, and pretend it's the identical thing.

You'll NEVER catch me being this dishonest - I would call Susan Collins a Republican, but I would never call her a conservative.

Again, name me one current Democrat that isn't a liberal.

Didn't we just do this in another thread? Or was that somebody else?

A Liberal may be a Democrat, a Republican or like me have no party affiliation. Ideologies are not parties.

An ideology is a philosophical belief. It's firm and fixed. A party is a machine to attain power. It's mutable and will accomodate as much diversity of belief as it can get away with. That's why you have, say, Susan Collins and Sarah Palin and Jon Huntsman and David Duke in the same party. Doesn't make them the same ideology.

That wasn't the question and had nothing to do with the question. Note you're the second liberal in the discussion who had to use the Republican party to show people who have different ideologies in the same party. I know there are different ideologies in the Republican party. They have socons, neocons, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, ...

The point is that Democrats are monolithic, you're authoritarian leftists who agree on every position. You call yourselves liberals, progressives, moderates and like different words, but they are in the Democratic party a distinction without a difference.

So how do you guys disagree with Bill Beckel exactly who is on FoxNews agreeing with the Democrats in every discussion just like you do? Put up some content. You call yourselves liberals, but you're not, libertarians are liberals. We believe in freedom, individuality and choice. The people who call themselves liberals are rigidly intolerant and demand government force to impose their will. There is nothing liberal about you. Words mean nothing without the content to back them up.

 

[kaz]

ALL of us know that ULTIMATELY Fox is responsible for their employees.

When Fox puts Walter Mondale's campaign manager on the air to give the Democrat viewpoint, what the liberal says is on them.

So that's the standard you hold the liberal media to, right? If they have a Republican on, and the Republican says something you don't like, you blame the liberal media who put them on?

LOL, maybe you do, maybe that's why you don't see anyone but liberals in the liberal media.

There is no "liberal media". Except to the redundancy extent that having a media (open discourse) is a Liberal idea. But as far as BM (Big Media) there is no ideology. BM isn't about ideology any more than Big Oil is about fuel efficiency. It's about making money. For itself. And ideology don't pay no bills. Profit does that.

We just did this a few minutes ago. Somebody must have thrown the switch on the Parallel Universe.

Didn't we just have this discussion?

You, Synthahol, you're liberals.

The media is moderate.

You're all Democrats, so you agree on every position. But you don't like the word with the media, and they don't like the word, so they are moderates.

That you agree on everything isn't relevant, that you like different words to describe yourself shows your diversity.

 

[kaz]

When Fox puts Walter Mondale's campaign manager on the air to give the Democrat viewpoint, what the liberal says is on them.

So that's the standard you hold the liberal media to, right? If they have a Republican on, and the Republican says something you don't like, you blame the liberal media who put them on?

LOL, maybe you do, maybe that's why you don't see anyone but liberals in the liberal media.

There is no "liberal media". Except to the redundancy extent that having a media (open discourse) is a Liberal idea. But as far as BM (Big Media) there is no ideology. BM isn't about ideology any more than Big Oil is about fuel efficiency. It's about making money. For itself. And ideology don't pay no bills. Profit does that.

We just did this a few minutes ago. Somebody must have thrown the switch on the Parallel Universe.

Do try to keep up kaz lol

As to the OP, Fox NEEDS to issue an apology!!!

Apologize for what exactly? You want Fox to apologize for allowing a liberal to embarrass you instead of covering up his bigotry like the liberal media would have done?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I got nuthin' against Orientals other than the fact that you can never tell what they're thinking about. A smile can mean anything from- they like you going all the way to they want to put you in a bamboo cage Michelle Malkin anyone?

Or maybe you're just dull witted and unperceptive, Scheiß Maus

 

[Uncensored2008]

There is no "liberal media". Except to the redundancy extent that having a media (open discourse) is a Liberal idea.

NOW there is some true ******* stupidity...

Look, you're a partisan hack, we get it. But the control of the MSM by the shameful democrats is well known and irrefutable. See, you don't acknowledge a political motive to Dan Rather forging documents to slander and libel Bush, because you agree with his motives. To anyone rational though, this was just another example of the fact that CBS is merely a propaganda outlet for the party.

But as far as BM (Big Media) there is no ideology. BM isn't about ideology any more than Big Oil is about fuel efficiency. It's about making money. For itself. And ideology don't pay no bills. Profit does that.

You of the left expect to control what information the public gets. America's own Goebbels, Edward Murrow, locked down television for the party in the 50's. The New York Times was already a mouthpiece for party goals.

For decades. print and electronic media served the democratic party faithfully. The party decided what the nation would know.

But then Rush Limbaugh came along, followed by an easily accessible internet, and your stranglehold on information was broken.

We just did this a few minutes ago. Somebody must have thrown the switch on the Parallel Universe.

Denying that the MSM is just a lackey for the party is no different than denying that water is wet - it merely reveals you to be stupid.

 

[Pogo]

Again, name me one current Democrat that isn't a liberal.

Didn't we just do this in another thread? Or was that somebody else?

A Liberal may be a Democrat, a Republican or like me have no party affiliation. Ideologies are not parties.

An ideology is a philosophical belief. It's firm and fixed. A party is a machine to attain power. It's mutable and will accomodate as much diversity of belief as it can get away with. That's why you have, say, Susan Collins and Sarah Palin and Jon Huntsman and David Duke in the same party. Doesn't make them the same ideology.

That wasn't the question and had nothing to do with the question. Note you're the second liberal in the discussion who had to use the Republican party to show people who have different ideologies in the same party. I know there are different ideologies in the Republican party. They have socons, neocons, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, ...

The point is that Democrats are monolithic, you're authoritarian leftists who agree on every position. You call yourselves liberals, progressives, moderates and like different words, but they are in the Democratic party a distinction without a difference.

So how do you guys disagree with Bill Beckel exactly who is on FoxNews agreeing with the Democrats in every discussion just like you do? Put up some content. You call yourselves liberals, but you're not, libertarians are liberals. We believe in freedom, individuality and choice. The people who call themselves liberals are rigidly intolerant and demand government force to impose their will. There is nothing liberal about you. Words mean nothing without the content to back them up.

Oh androgynous self-back-patting poster please. It's not even your question. I can't remember who it was but somebody posed me the exact same question just a couple of days ago and I didn't wish to reinvent the wheel.

Your first paragraph is completely agreeing with my point; that political parties are machines designed to acquire power, and not houses of holy ideology. They will bend and morph and stretch their own purported 'ideals' as far as they can in pursuit of that power. Why is the Republican Party off limits to illustrate that?

OK, take an example from the other side, the Democratic Party that chugged along in its own intentionally blind bipolarity for a hundred years until the mid-20th century turning a blind eye to its ultraconservatve wing, the one populated by (Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, David Duke et al), floating on a sea of duplicity for the sake of attaining and retaining power. Once again as before -- one party, multiple ideologies.

Whichever.

The point was, "Liberal" doesn't mean left or right; it's in conflict with both. Demagogues like Joe McCarthy and the whole "red scare" national groupthink exercise -- and four decades later Lee Atwater (his script obediently read by good-robot candidate George H.W. Bush) exhorted us to conflate the word "liberal" with "leftist". If you take your cues from partisan hacks like Lee Atwater you're going to keep ending up in this kind of a rhetorical hole.

Oh wait, you're the same guy/gal/guess who just typed "liberal media" three times in a row in an attempt to get it to stick, so you're already in the hole....

Democrats are anything but "monolithic" (see above). That's what Will Rogers meant when he said, "I belong to no organized political party; I am a Democrat". Eighty years ago. Had that not been based in truth it would never work as humor.

"How do you guys disagree with Bill Beckel exactly?" Damned if I know; I don't follow Bob ("Bobby") Beckel (teen idol), and I keep looking around and standing in a mirror and while I may be slightly overweight I stil cannot be described as "you guys". I don't know what the **** his positions are, and unless he's running for some office that affects me, I don't care. I hold my own positions to be self-evident. That you can't take my points on their own is your failing, not mine.

You've gotta get over this crutch where you can only think in broad brush groupthink generalizations. I am not a member of any organized or disorganized political party. And that's intentional. So your second-person plural pronouns are an glaring example of that crutch. Continue speaking as if addressing some kind of monolith, and you'll be monolithically ignored as a crank.

 

[Pogo]

There is no "liberal media". Except to the redundancy extent that having a media (open discourse) is a Liberal idea.

NOW there is some true ******* stupidity...

Look, you're a partisan hack, we get it. But the control of the MSM by the shameful democrats is well known and irrefutable. See, you don't acknowledge a political motive to Dan Rather forging documents to slander and libel Bush, because you agree with his motives. To anyone rational though, this was just another example of the fact that CBS is merely a propaganda outlet for the party.

But as far as BM (Big Media) there is no ideology. BM isn't about ideology any more than Big Oil is about fuel efficiency. It's about making money. For itself. And ideology don't pay no bills. Profit does that.

You of the left expect to control what information the public gets. America's own Goebbels, Edward Murrow, locked down television for the party in the 50's. The New York Times was already a mouthpiece for party goals.

For decades. print and electronic media served the democratic party faithfully. The party decided what the nation would know.

But then Rush Limbaugh came along, followed by an easily accessible internet, and your stranglehold on information was broken.

We just did this a few minutes ago. Somebody must have thrown the switch on the Parallel Universe.

Denying that the MSM is just a lackey for the party is no different than denying that water is wet - it merely reveals you to be stupid.

While comparing CBS with Lush Rimjob is a false comparison (Rimjob is not and has never claimed to be a "news" source), it nevertheless illustrates my whole point. Two different BM "ideologies", both making money? That's because it's not about ideology and never was -- it's about money..... and always was. Ideology makes zero money. Think about it.

"until Rush Limbaugh came along", Pothead please. You insult everybody from Bill Buckley to Charles Coughlin. Do you have his poster on your bedroom ceiling too? Does it have sticky spots on it?

 

[Unkotare]

Enjoy the show as obvious liberals prance around on the far left until they are caught unable to defend their far-left positions and rank hypocrisy, at which point they start demanding that people suspend disbelief and accept that they are not really liberals after all so they can't be held accountable for their own political positions.

The insecure lefty escape-hatch!

 

[Unkotare]

 

[Uncensored2008]

While comparing CBS with Lush Rimjob is a false comparison (Rimjob is not and has never claimed to be a "news" source), it nevertheless illustrates my whole point. Two different BM "ideologies", both making money? That's because it's not about ideology and never was -- it's about money..... and always was. Ideology makes zero money. Think about it.

"until Rush Limbaugh came along", Pothead please. You insult everybody from Bill Buckley to Charles Coughlin. Do you have his poster on your bedroom ceiling too? Does it have sticky spots on it?

While Buckley was a great man, he did not break the back of the leftist hold on information. There is no question that conservatives are vastly more intellectual than leftists, but even so, National Review lacked the popular appeal needed for the mainstream, it was too high-brow for the average person.

What Limbaugh did was design a show that appealed to working people. Because it was on the radio, it meant people could listen at their desks. He added humor and great skits to the political debate. It was brilliant in every way.

You hate him the way you do, precisely because he broke a wheel on the leftist media train.

Limbaugh shook up the managed news of the MSN, but the Internet destroyed your complete lock on information. Your only hope is "net neutrality," to put a gag on content from sites that fail to tow the party line - in the name of "fairness," of course...

 

[Pogo]

While comparing CBS with Lush Rimjob is a false comparison (Rimjob is not and has never claimed to be a "news" source), it nevertheless illustrates my whole point. Two different BM "ideologies", both making money? That's because it's not about ideology and never was -- it's about money..... and always was. Ideology makes zero money. Think about it.

"until Rush Limbaugh came along", Pothead please. You insult everybody from Bill Buckley to Charles Coughlin. Do you have his poster on your bedroom ceiling too? Does it have sticky spots on it?

While Buckley was a great man, he did not break the back of the leftist hold on information. There is no question that conservatives are vastly more intellectual than leftists, but even so, National Review lacked the popular appeal needed for the mainstream, it was too high-brow for the average person.

Which all serves to buttress and confirm my very points about what BM is and why it's never going to dabble in ideology. As already said repeatedly --- ideology doesn't sell.

Bill Buckley's media presentation was all ideology, therefore, as you correctly note, it didn't 'sell'. That's why it had to broadcast on PBS. Duh??

Now that we agree cerebral doesn't sell soap, we can dismiss the wacko idea that our for-profit megalopoly media uses ideology to sell itself. By mutual agreement.

What Limbaugh did was design a show that appealed to working people. Because it was on the radio, it meant people could listen at their desks.

Yeah we already have a term for that: "dumb down".

Once again, and again as already noted, a program consisting of rants not about policies but about the personal. The intellectual banquet of Buckley abandoned in favor of emotional French fries. "Slut! Slut! Slut" is not exactly a Buckleyesque tome. But you know what it does --- it sells. And that's why Lush Rimjob has a massive audience and Bill Buckley didn't. QED. Ideology doesn't sell; dumb-down does. Duh.

And again, people were "listening at their desks" so to speak as far back as Charles Coughlin. Who was also highly controversial conservative and who also therefore "sold". BIG time.

He added humor and great skits to the political debate. It was brilliant in every way.

Because there's nothing funnier than slandering a female college student with "they're lined up around the block!!". That's funny as a crutch. Brilliant.

You hate him the way you do, precisely because he broke a wheel on the leftist media train.

I've never met him but I do hold what he does in contempt. Because it's manipulative dishonesty, and he knows full well that what he's doing is stirring the shit "to make you mad" so that he can charge "confiscatory ad rates". That's his description -- he's telling you straight out, and you're going as you wank to his poster on your ceiling.

Sorry if that's graphic but I never did understand obsequious hero-worship.

Limbaugh shook up the managed news of the MSN, but the Internet destroyed your complete lock on information. Your only hope is "net neutrality," to put a gag on content from sites that fail to tow the party line - in the name of "fairness," of course...

The Fairness Doctrine not only no longer exists but could never have applied to the internet anyway per its own basis. Challenge me on that and I will destroy you like I did in Rachel Carson. Interesting juxtaposition though, as the repeal of the FD -- a policy that ensured that dialogue would prevail over monologue -- coincided with the rise of a misogynistic monologuist who screens his calls and never has guests, lest his monologue feel the hot breath of challenge on its neck. How do you spell "opportunist"?


Puppets...

 

[Slyhunter]

Didn't we just do this in another thread? Or was that somebody else?

A Liberal may be a Democrat, a Republican or like me have no party affiliation. Ideologies are not parties.

An ideology is a philosophical belief. It's firm and fixed. A party is a machine to attain power. It's mutable and will accomodate as much diversity of belief as it can get away with. That's why you have, say, Susan Collins and Sarah Palin and Jon Huntsman and David Duke in the same party. Doesn't make them the same ideology.

But in the current list of politicians name me one Democrat who isn't a Liberal.

Are you the same poster who asked me that the other day? Because that's been asked and answered. Seeing as how you didn't bother to read the post above I'm disinclined to repeat myself.

All Democrats are Liberals. That might've used to be different, and someday it may be different again, but today it's true.

 

[Uncensored2008]

All Democrats are Liberals. That might've used to be different, and someday it may be different again, but today it's true.

Honestly, i don't know a single democrat who is a liberal.

I don't think the totalitarian democrats are even remotely compatible with the concepts and ideals of liberty.

 

[Pogo]

But in the current list of politicians name me one Democrat who isn't a Liberal.

Are you the same poster who asked me that the other day? Because that's been asked and answered. Seeing as how you didn't bother to read the post above I'm disinclined to repeat myself.

All Democrats are Liberals. That might've used to be different, and someday it may be different again, but today it's true.

Bullshit.

Know any Democrats who support Affirmative Action?

Bob's your uncle.